There’s not much to the filings themselves:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Google’s document reiterates its initial argument. The search giant says that it doesn’t knowingly store or play copyrighted clips on the site, and if it does, it’s protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It also cites last fall’s ruling in the Veoh\/Universal Music Group case<\/a>, in which a court ruled in favor of the video sharing site.<\/li>\n
- Viacom’s document reiterates its initial argument, which is that Google and YouTube knew what they were doing and profited from it, which means the DMCA doesn’t protect them . And perhaps it says\u00a0 something more interesting. Hard to tell, since US District Court judge Louis Stanton has redacted more than a page of the document, as you can see here:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
![\"Viacom](\"http:\/\/www.stoth.com\/wp-content\/plugins\/wp-o-matic\/cache\/86757_Viacom-redacted.png\")
<\/a>
\nWonder what that says? Me too.<\/p>\nViacom filing:
\nVia 1710<\/a>
\nGoogle filing:
\nGoog1710<\/a> <\/p>\nBuy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n
- Viacom’s document reiterates its initial argument, which is that Google and YouTube knew what they were doing and profited from it, which means the DMCA doesn’t protect them . And perhaps it says\u00a0 something more interesting. Hard to tell, since US District Court judge Louis Stanton has redacted more than a page of the document, as you can see here:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n